Psychogeography in Planning: A New Methodological Approach via Representations of ‘Body’, ‘Urban Space’ and ‘Walking’

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2023.255

Keywords:

Body, dérive, psychogeography, representations of space, walking

Abstract

Pattern of urban space penetrates the minds and bodies of citizens; this penetration results in a two-folded map: physical and psychogeographic maps. Mental representations enable (re)-reading the invisible components of physical organization through spatial practice. Re-mapping such an authentic spatial knowledge is a crucial but neglected field of enquiry within planning to grasp the gap between ‘what is conceived’ and ‘what is experienced’. ‘Psychogeography’ concentrates on how the environment influences individuals’ feelings and attitudes and therefore –at the intersection of geography and psychology– it presents an epistemological basis to examine such a gap and offers methodological inputs to cover the interrelation among top-down designs of urban space and bottom-up reproductions of ‘the soul’ of the city. Within this context, the main question of the study is “how the representations of walking experience can be used within planning with reference to the two-folded map assumption”. During this examination, theoretical and methodological readings on psychogeography led us to an epistemological baseline, as an initial step to construct a new spatial methodology of the ‘body’ and ‘walking experience’. The studyk is composed of three sub-sections. Firstly, the gap between ‘physical’ and ‘psychological’ maps is conceptualized. Secondly, the concept of psychogeography is defined as a source and method of spatial knowledge within its deficiencies and potentials. Lastly, the term, Dérive, implying ‘deviation’ and ‘resistance’, is discussed as a methodological path in grasping the gap between physical and psychological maps via the experience of body and conception of the designer.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Yasemin İlkay, Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi

Dr. Yasemin İLKAY is graduated from the Department of City and Regional Planning at Middle East Technical University in 2004. She completed her M.Sc. and Ph.D. in the Department of Urban Policy Planning and Local Governments at the same university. Since her graduation in 2016, June, she has been working in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University. She gives lectures on history of cities and civilization, space ethics, environmental psychology, urban politics, politics of green spaces and coordinates the basic design studio [Planning Studio I and II] in addition to her contribution to the third year planning studio.

References

Aksümer, G. (2019). Kenti yaşayandan öğrenmek: Şehircilik çalışmalarında rehberli gezi yönteminin kullanımı, İzmir-Selçuk ve Bursa-İznik örnekleri. Megaron, 14 (4), 598-610. https://doi.org/10.14744/MEGARON.2019.48751

Coşkun, H. (2017, December 7). Psikocoğrafya nedir? https://htcoskun.blogspot.com/2017/12/psikocografya-nedir.html

Covery, M. (2011). Psikocoğrafya: Londra Yazıları. Kalkedon Yay.

Çelen Öztürk, A. (2016). Eskişehir’in geçmişteki ve bugünkü kent belleğinin zihin haritaları üzerinden okuma denemeleri. İdeal Kent Dergisi, 20(7), 856-880. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/466335

Debord G. (1955). Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography, (Translated by Ken Knabb), Les Nevres Mues, Situationist International Anthology. Bureu of Public Secrets [2006 (revised and expanded edition)].

Göregenli, M. (2010). Çevre Psikolojisi – İnsan Mekân İlişkileri. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.

İlkay, Y. (2016). (Re)Production and appropriation of open public spaces: Representational moments for urban green in ankara. Unpublished PhD thesis, METU, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Urban Policy Planning and Local Governments.

İlkay, Y. (2017). Kentsel yeşil alan’ın ne’liği üzerine: Ankara’da yeşil alanın temsil mekanı olarak (yeniden) üretilmesi. İdeal Kent – Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi. İdeal Kent Araştırmaları Yayınevi, vol. 21, 181–199. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/466435

İlkay, Y. (2018). Liveliness pattern of van city centre (bazaar) from the viewpoint of flâneur/flâneuse: Spatial topology of two main axes with open and green areas. In G. F. Yücel Caymaz & B. Işık (Eds), Cultural Landscape of Van, Turkey (pp. 168–183). Istanbul Aydın University Publications.

İlkay, Y. (2020). ‘Kendileme’ odağında kentte yürümenin mekânsal topolojisi: Van örneğinde alt yürüme bölgeleri. Sketch, Journal of City and Regional Planning, 02(02), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.5505/sjcrp.2021.43153

Jacobs, J. (2011 [1961]). Büyük Amerikan Şehirlerinin Ölümü ve Yaşamı. Metis Yayınları.

Kelly F. (2020). ‘Hurry up please, it’s time!’ A psychogeography of a decommissioned university campus. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(6), 722-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1746263

Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research: An introduction and guide. Polity Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). Production of Space, Blackwell.

Lynch, K. (2010 [1960]). Kent imgesi. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.

MacFarle, R. (2005). A road to one’s own (kendine ait bir yol). Literature Booklet of Times,7th October 2005.

Pamuk, O. (2006). İstanbul: Hatıralar ve şehir. İletişim Yayınları.

Paquot, T. (2011 [2005]). Şehirsel bedenler: Beton ile asfalt arası(nda) hassasiyetler. Everest Yayınları/Satırarası.

Önen, S. (2016). Kenti yürüyerek keşfetmenin sosyolojisi. İdeal Kent Dergisi, 18(7), 286-303. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/464560

Öner, O. (2020). Ses yürüyüşleri ve mekânsal algı çalışmalarında kentsel planlamaya: Kadiköy_akustik örneği. Mimarlık ve Yaşam Dergisi, 5(2), 277-297. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.713884

Sarı, J. (2013). Kenti deneyimleme aracı olarak psikocoğrafya. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Science and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture.

Seamon, D. (2013). Place attachment and phenomenology, the synergistic dynamism of place. In Manzo & Wright (Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 11-22). Routledge.

Sennett, R. (2008). Ten ve taş: Batı uygarlığında beden ve şehir. Metis Yayınları.

Şahin Yeşil, S. (2016). Psikocoğrafya ve bir şehir gezgininin anıları. Monograf / Edebiyat Eleştirisi Dergisi, 2016/5, 124–149. http://monografjournal.com /sayilar/5/psikocografya-ve-bir-sehir-gezgininin-anilari.pdf

Stavrides, S. (2018). Müşterek mekân: Müşterekler olarak şehir. Sel Yayınları.

Şengül, H.T. (2000). Siyaset ve mekansal ölçek sorunu: Yerelci stratejilerin bir eleştirisi. In A. Tonak (Ed.), Küreselleşme, İmge Kitabevi.

Tanpınar, A. H. (1960). İstanbul: Beş şehir. İş Bankası Yayınları.

Taşdizen ve Kaygan (2016). Ahlak dışı nesneler: Ulus’ta kentsel dönüşümün bir psikocoğrafyası. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 89-103. https://jag.journalagent.com/jas/pdfs/JAS_4_2_89_103.pdf

Werner, S. and Schindler, L. E. (2004). The Role of Spatial Reference Frames in Architecture. Environment and Behaviour, v.36, 4, 461-482.

Yorgancıoğlu D. ve Çalak I. (2020). Bedensel deneyime dayalı yer bilgisinin yeniden yapılandırılması için bir yöntem irdelemesi: Deneyimsel harita. Megaron, 15(1), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.14744/MEGARON.2020.80269

Downloads

Published

28-12-2023

How to Cite

İlkay, Y. (2023). Psychogeography in Planning: A New Methodological Approach via Representations of ‘Body’, ‘Urban Space’ and ‘Walking’ . ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 11(2), 584–603. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2023.255

Issue

Section

KBAM 2021 Selected Articles